Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hugo Chavez Allies Score Big Wins in Venezuela Elections
CARACAS - President Hugo Chavez's candidates won a majority of the governor's elections in Venezuela on Sunday, but opposition forces could point to gains with victories in several major states as well as the capital city, Caracas.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has hailed his party's majority victories in key local polls but recognized opposition gains, in five states and the capital Caracas.
(AFP/Thomas Coex)
Both sides declared victory.
"The people are telling me, 'Chavez, continue down the same road, the road of socialism,' " Chavez said early Monday just after the main results were announced.
But he also acknolwedged the opposition's advance. "We have to carry out a self-criticism where that's necessary.
The stakes were high because the election results will determine Chavez's next moves at home and abroad.
Chavez's gubernatorial candidates won 17 of the 22 states, according to the state election board. The opposition held onto Zulia and Nueva Espartaand took control of Miranda, Carabobo, Tachira and metropolitan Caracas, where Antonio Ledezma is the new mayor.
Chavez can claim satisfaction because his older brother, Adan, won a tight race to be the new governor in their home state, Barinas. Their father is the outgoing governor.
The opposition was hopeful that it would win Carabobo and Tachira, the two other states whose results remained in doubt early Monday morning.
Chavez's party won all but two of the the governor's races contested in 2004, so while he won most of the races on Sunday, the opposition parties gained ground, particularly in the country's biggest states.
Chavez had signaled that he wanted a mandate Sunday to seek public approval early next year to abolish term limits so he can seek another six-year term in 2012. He lost a similar referendum one year ago, his only electoral defeat in 10 years as president.
Chavez also wanted a mandate to further his ''21st Century Socialist Revolution'' so he can nationalize more companies and gain more political power for both himself and his followers so they can rule as they see fit.
Charismatic and constantly preaching his solidarity with the poor, Chavez enjoyed a 57 percent approval rating in October in one poll and had bet that his popularity would pull his candidates to victory.
Chavez also wanted to fortify his role as Latin America's most powerful leader in the post-Castro era. As a measure of this, he will host Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Caracas on Wednesday in a meeting of two oil-rich nations that have testy relations with the United States.
Opposition forces wanted to build upon last year's victory to thwart Chávez's grand ambitions.
Chavez crisscrossed Venezuela over the past two months, using the full force of his government to push for his 22 candidates for governor and 328 candidates for mayor.
State television and radio stations broadcast pro-Chavez ads, and government officials handed out free refrigerators, washing machines and mattresses in poor neighborhoods.
The race in the western plains state of Barinas was important symbolically.
Chavez's father had been governor for 10 years. Two of his brothers hold public jobs in Barinas while two others have contracts to do business with the state.
Accusations that the Chavez family during its 10 years in power has built mansions and bought ranches had given Barinas Mayor Julio Cesar Reyes a fighting chance to defeat Adan Chavez and inflict an embarrassing defeat for President Chavez.
In Barquisimeto, a city in western Venezuela, Chavez's ex-wife, Marisabel Rodríguez, was running for mayor on an anti-Chavez platform. The result was not known early Monday morning.
Also not known was the result in Sucre, a sprawling slum district in metropolitan Caracas. Opposition candidate Carlos Ocariz ran against Jesse Chacon, a former Chavez minister.
In the Sucre neighborhood of Petare, two dozen pro-Chavez voters didn't identify Chacon by name when asked whom they supported.
''For the revolutionary process,'' said Yumelis Montano, a 47-year-old seamstress, ''it is going well.'' Montano, like virtually all the other pro-Chavez voters, cited government assistance in explaining her vote. Montaño has received free medicine from Cuban doctors who work in poor neighborhoods in a program created by Chavez's close relationship with Cuba.
Wendys Bello, 33, voted for the government candidates because she credited Chavez with allowing her to get her high school degree next month in one of the government's free educational programs known as ''missions.'' Dixia Nava, 48, favored Chavez's candidates because of government grocery stores in poor neighborhoods that allow her to buy food at a deep discount.
Jorge Padilla, a 40-year-old house painter, voted for Chavez's candidates because Chavez gave citizenship to thousands of illegal Colombian immigrants in Venezuela, like himself.
But many other people at this voting station in Petare favored opposition candidate Ocariz, a former congressman, because of skyrocketing crime.
Jhon Saez was robbed of $5,000 by a man who shoved a gun in his bank as he left a bank 10 days ago.
Alberto Flores was held up by a gun-wielding assailant outside his home on Wednesday and lost $200.
''Chavez doesn't care about the crime problem,'' Flores said. At a more upscale Caracas neighborhood, Magaly Rodriguez, a retired government worker, called Chavez a ''demagogue, a liar, a person taking us backward,'' when she explained why she voted for the opposition slate.
Venezuelans voted on touch screen machines. Each person had up to six minutes to vote. After voting, each person dipped their right pinkie in an inkwell to prevent voting a second time.
- Posted in



94 Comments so far
Show AllI am both glad that Chavez 'won' and I'm also glad that he didn't win completely. This is the whole point of a representative government. There are more people that need representation than the poor, just as in the USA there are more people that need representation than the rich. Neither extreme is truly viable.
My own gloss for Chavez has waned since his bid to change the constitution. And he then periodically says things that really bother me. Like threatening to withhold funds if you don't agree with him.
On the other hand these reports come through the lens of the US press which is always desperate for negative quotes from Chavez.
So I stay a supporter of the man but without the blind acceptance.
He's going to come under a lot of stress in the short term as oil prices drop. I am going to be curious how he reacts to this...who knows, if he does well the gloss might even return!
What is your take "Like threatening to withhold funds if you don't agree with him" on our government witholding funds to rural health clinics if they try to offer services such as birth control?
I've been a supporter of his too. Now I'm wondering. I'd say he's probably at the point of corruption. He had the power, and a lot of people around the world were behind him. It takes a very sound person not to become corrupted by that kind of power and backing. It sounds like he's looking for ways to get that power back, for now at least going about it the right way. How long before he begins to take what he wants by force because it eludes him otherwise?
You lost me.
He had WHAT power, precisely, that he does not have now?
Chavez has been in the power, with at least a 60% approval rate, for 10 years. Folks still trust him.
Obama was just elected, has not even been sworn in yet, and already folks don't trust him because of the hawks, zionists and savage capitalists he has appointed to his cabinet.
I would recommend tending to your own knitting.
Venezuela is doing just fine.
The fact that Chavez and Evo Morales still hold power in their respective nations is a sure indicator of the ongoing weakening of the American Empire. Three cheers! In the "old days", these two would've been dead and buried by now.
Mordechai my Man, you are too right!
Yeah,but I am sure that the power,elite are working on it!
Tyler Bridges this is faint praise at best and dissinformation at worst.
The majority elected the man, so why is the majority of this article so negative?
I'll say what Tyler didn't- Congratulations Hugo! Well done, keep up the good fight.
And YES, YES, socialism IS the road to take.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
!Viva Hugo!
Can you imagine if America had Hugo as its president?
Hoa binh
Si, yo puedo!
In fact, I think those of us here at CD imagine that every day.
The closest we tried to get was Kucinich and even Ron Paul wasn't too bad. Then there was Mckinney and Nader but since it was hopeless, a lot of us like myself gave up, went against our own hearts and minds, and voted Obama with our noses pinched tight. I don't think Obama will go against Chavez the way Bush/Cheney did but I don't see him giving up Raygun-omics anytime soon. :=(
Well, well, well, so rumors of Hugo and the Bolivarian Revolution's demise are greatly exagerated. Surprise, Surprise! There is work to do in the real world where not everybody is a robotic ideological partisan.
Since crime was exploited by the opposition as an issue of discontent, it would be interesting to see the Bolivarian Revolution seek a more rehabilitative approach to criminality and not just punitive warfare and incarceration.
Hugo has to dste behaved himself like a gentl;eman with the Venezuelan electorate and is realizing by now that he must seek consensus rather than just ideological purity.
As long as Hugo continues to reach out to those in society the revolution will continue even if Hugo does not. Viva Hugo, viva La Revolution Bolivarian!
Poet
The US needs to stop calling Chavez a "dictator". That is malicious slander. Viva Chavez!
I guess it would be good to have a dictator as long as Chavez was the dictator!
he is Now a dictator, purhaps when he first was elected his intentions were good but like all humans, the more power they gain, the more they want. If he was not a dictator, he would not seek to change term limits. Term limits are a good thing, keeps govermant improving. We need more term limits on congress, it needs fresh blood.
You're correct about the need for term limits in this country.
As for Chavez, he still won despite his having changed the term limits so don't blame him. Complain to those voters if you wish.
Your logic is faulty.
Tell the 17 presidents of countries of the European Union that they are dictators.
I am sure they will tell you that you are a crackpot.
Indeed it is. No one sane doubts that he won a majority of the votes; ergo he is not a dictator.
Now, if the left would stop whining about how Calderon of Mexico and Uribe of Columbia, who also won more votes, far more than Chavez in Uribe's case, your complaint would be taken more seriously.
Hmm, I assume you have some kind of proof that the election observors in Mexico did not see in 2006 concerning Calderon's victory? Since AMLO claimed on election night to have won by "500,000" votes, that means that at a minimum 34% (instead of the 36% officially reported) of Mexicans voted for Calderon. In your studied opinion, living in Mexico, are 34% of Mexicans "fascists"?
Yeah I do: Vicente Fox took credit for operating the sirty war and the fraud against AMLO--and did so publically. It was in all the newspapers and probably those in the US as he said it in Washington DC!
The going price the PAN paid for votes in my village was 100 pesos, though my brother received 200. It was such a problem that the municipio put up big banners saying Don't Sell Your Vote! That doesn't make folks who checked the box for the PAN fascists, no. It makes them cynical and it makes them poor, too. Lots of folks who accepted the 100 pesos here did so because 100 pesos is two days of the minimum wage. The PAN used the rolls of the folks who received money from government aid programs in the agricultural sector to offer folks the 100 pesos.
Election observors here saw a variety of violations--including folks at the ballot boxes being "replaced" by folks in Gordillo's teachers' union, ballot box stuffing, ballots for AMLO being thrown away--and the most common was the lack of congruency between the cover sheets for each ballot box and the actual number of ballots cast for each candidate.
Millions of folks didn't protest the election for no reason. And they didn't camp out for more than 2 months just to pretened they were boy scouts, either.
The case of access to the ballots is at the level of the Interamerica Court, as the PAN has been trying to burn them--just like the PAN and PRI did to those in the 1988 presidential election which was won by Cardenas and when the "system went down".
The election frauds in Mexico are legendary. One of the candidates, Madrazo, has had the nickname "Mapache" for his flagrant frauds. Yep, the same guy who said he "won" the Berl,in Marathon in 2006 but was disqualified as he only ran the first and last parts of the course....
Things are not as simple as you present them.
physicscitizen said:
"I am both glad that Chavez 'won' and I'm also glad that he didn't win completely. This is the whole point of a representative government. There are more people that need representation than the poor, just as in the USA there are more people that need representation than the rich. Neither extreme is truly viable."
With modern communications, the representative government dinosaur that mostly represents Big Money could now become extinct. Can you imagine letting the people decide by having referendums on issues here like Chavez has in Venezuela?
Obama is not allowed online anymore. He is fed filtered news and corporate media to keep him isolated from the people in a "protective" cocoon consisting of the power brokers responsible for our plight.
"Obama is not allowed online anymore."
Obama's not using a Blackberry isn't exactly the equivalent of being 'fed filtered news and corporate media'. People have failed to notice that Axelrod & Plouffe retain their closeness to Obama.
I absolutely disagree with Biden, Clinton & Obama on Venezuela. But the Venezuelans have shown once again that they continue to support the Bolivarian revolution.
Too bad about Zulia state. I worry for the Wayuu whose land is rich in coal and about to be given over to foreign mining operations for exploitation.
You never heard the American press say one word about the oppressive, criminal dictators that the US supported who gave away Venezuelan oil for mere bribes and didn't do anything for the majority of the people in Venezuela. They only criticize the leaders that are on the side of the people. Are they really so unscrupulous or are they truly in the hands of the CIA?
It is very difficult for a democracy to flourish when you have the CIA, NED and USAID trying to subvert it all the time. It forces countries like Cuba and Venezuela to take measures to protect the advances they make on behalf of the people-- like extending term limits. This is a new system of government. The opposition wants to overthrow it, not simply be a different version of it. Any temporary dilution or weakness in the revolution makes space for the old guard to move right in. When the minority opposition owns all the land and has the majority of the wealth, it is difficult to hang on to democratically earned gains by the poor. Imagine if the British didn't relinquish control over the colonies. How differently would our nation have turned out had they continually sought to regain control?
bligh4
Just what I want to support, another ego-maniacal autocrat. I thought there were enough already in the world.
Well, at least the economy is doing far better in Venuzuela than it is in this miserable nation of ours. Thanks to 8 years of autocrat bullying in Washington and around the world especially in Iraq, the US is shackled at her wrists and ankles and after doing a lot of nation pimping on wars and trade, she's about to get a chastity belt locked around her wait for at least a decade or until this nation can behave itself ! And you may not like Chavez but at least the man knows how to wisely use that oil revenue to repair the country's infrastructure and pull more people out of poverty. You cannot say the same of the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or just about any oil producing nation.
Doing better? Would you like to compare Venezuela vs America in Unemployment, Inflation, and crime statistics???
Go ahead, then. Let's see your stats.
Certainly.
Unemployment:
USA: 6.5% (October) source US Bureau of Labor Statistics
VENEZUELA: 7.3%, source http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3948
Inflation
USA: 3.7%, source US Bureau of Labor Statistics
VENEZUELA 34.5% (food inflation is 51%), year ending in August 2008. Source http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3948, www.eluniversal.com
Crime (Murder rate)
USA: 4 per 100,000. Falling.
Venezuela: 31 per 100,000; 130 per 100,000 in Caracas (Highest rate of any city in the world). Rising.
Comment, please.
Thanks for the reply. I figured the stats would be nominally worse in Venezuela than the US, but not quite as much as you cite. I haven't yet had the time to check these myself, but you deserved an honest reply. My next question is what these stats implicate. Are they measurably worse than they were 10 years ago before Chavez came into power? Is there reason in your opinion that Chavez's socialist policies are directly responsible for these indicators?
The US gubbmint fabricates its data to keep the public in the dark as much as possible and cover up for their failed "libertarian" economic policies so it's a whole lot worse than what they claim it to be.
The US does definitely cook the books on inflation. From you own experience recall that in the 1970's you could by a paperback book for 95 cents and a good car for $3000. A 3.7% inflation rate would result in about a three fold increase in price from then to now. The US inflation rate does not include food or energy costs. And things like TVs are counted as a price decrease because the price for an HDTV equivalent in 1970 was astronomically high comparied to today's prices. (That is, the inflation rate does not take into account technological advances.) Hence we have an artificially low official rate. Think about what you paid for health care, food, housing, in 1970 verses what it costs us now. My monthly rent in Boston ranged between $40 (a dump) and $125 (a nice place) in 1970. While I no longer live in Boston, I think it would be hard to find an 3BR apartment for $120 to $375 a month today, don't you?
True. On the other hand, think what you paid for a Color TV in 1970, (or ANYTHING electronic, a TRS-80 computer in the late 1970's cost $500, which is double what I paid for my E-machine tower last year.) or to make a long distance call, or to fly cross country, or for tires for your car. I was born in 1967, and get a kick out of seeing what the inflation rate from my birth to now is; it is presently about SIX hundred per cent, so a $3,000 car in 1967 would run about $18,000 today, which is a about right. Understand too, that the 1967 car did not include airbags (which add almost $1,000 to the price) or any anti-polluton devices. You are undoubtably correct about housing, but with everything else, I think prices have actually dropped on a lot of things.
A $3000 car in 1967 was a pretty good car. From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_things_cost_in_1967
Average cost of a new car:
1967: $2,750
2007: $28,200
This is over 10 times rather than the 6 as predicted by inflation. Daggone pesky Congress mandating things like seat belts has driven the cost up. The auto companies have of course fought every safety and milage improvement but that is an entirely different issue. And I would agree that cars are better today, but do we really need power seats, power windows, and the greatest American improvement in history, Side Pillar Lighting?
The murder stats are demonstrably worse. The inflation has to be compared with other countries in the region. In other words, if everybody else has 100% inflation, and you "only" have 50%, you are doing a better job than your neighbors. On the other hand, if everybody else (except Argentina) has single digit inflation and you have 30%, you are mishandling your economy. The second is the example in Venezuela, which today has, by far, the worse inflation in America.
You seem to be making the implication that I do not like Chavez. You are quite correct. Unlike shrill Carla Walters, I have not accepted St. Hugo as my own personal savior, and I do not worship him. I am not comparing him to Bush, nor to center-right democratically elected Latin presidents like Calderon, Uribe, or Garcia of Peru, I am comparing him to center-left democrats like Vazquez of Uruguay, Lula of Brazil, and Bachalet of Chile.
ALL of the last three have, with no bombast, managed to decrease inflation, decrease crime, and, especially in the case of Brazil, DRAMATICALLY increase living standards. Since Lula and Vazquez came to power, their parties have faced the voters, once in Uruguay, and several times in Brazil. They have won repeatedly, and done so without disqualifying or threatening to jail a single candidate (Who is the Brazilian Leopoldo Lopez?), without shutting down a single TV station, and without tapping a single telephone call. How can you not respect them?
Chavez, on the other hand, is a buffoon who version of "socialism" is based on resource extraction and nothing else. (Venezuela cannot even feed itself, which is why Chavez backed down from his confrontation with Uribe. If Columbia cuts off the food exports, their economy will suffer. Venezuela will starve.) With the price of oil collapsing, whither Chavez?
Now cue more shrill, profanity laced rants from Carla Walters and others who's Messiah I have just profaned.
Look, I'll tell ya Liberty, I appreciate your thoughtful postings and you've given me some pause about Chavez. My initial reaction is to root for the socialist team, because I've decided that my own positions make me a democratic socialist, and I obviously don't consider that a bad thing.
I had heard about the newspaper closure, and that did cause me concern, and I knew some of his more outlandish antics driven by his clearly large ego had turned off alot of people and leaders in the region who were otherwise sympathetic to his reforms. I have not heard about the wire tapping or threats to jail opponents. If this is true, something is clearly amiss.
However, at the same time I know the former ruling elite were a band of thugs, and with the help of Bush's CIA ran a coup on him in 2002, so I've been willing to cut him a little slack for his heated rheoric. And somebody needed to say those thing about Bush at the UN... I've been thinking here's a guy who brought a gun to the gun fight, and more power to him.
Carla clearly has some different ideas to present, some of them I want to hear more about. Sadly, screaming "Nazi!" at you isn't helping her arguments out at all. I come on this site to learn primarily, not to be right. Thanks for playing.
Please do not mistake my criticism of Chavez for any kind of support for the AD/COPEI kleptocrats who (mis)ruled Venezuela before 1998. Venezuela recieved a FORTUNE in oil wealth during the 1980's price run up, and all of it was wasted and/or stolen.
If Chavez died tomorrow, at least he would have the pleasure of knowing that both AD and COPEI died before him, and all Venezuelans should thank him for destroying those two parties.
That, of course, is the real shame about Chavez. Having rid the country of the old thieves who ran it, he could have created a genuine social-democratic democracy, as Tabare Vazquez (who also basically destroyed the old Liberal and Colorado parties, although these parties were far less venal than their Venezuelan counterparts.) is doing in Uruguay. A country were those who disagree are not labeled "enemies", a country who's inflation and crime rates are under control, a country that does not needlessly pick fights with the US, Mexico, Columbia, Spain, Peru, and anyone else who does not kowtow to it. And, most of all, a country where the opposition does not hate the president so badly that when they DO take power (and all oppositions do take power, sooner or later.) they will dismantle all the social programs Chavez has implemented.
Of course, that last assumes that the social programs do not self dismantle with $30 a barrel oil. This is perhaps Chavez's worse sin. He has presided over an absolutely unprecedented financial windfall, and has also frittered the money away, both by buying friends abroad and buying votes at home. Meanwhile, as I mentioned before, Venezuela's infrastructure continues to fall apart, and the economy is the least diversified in Latin America.
It is all a shame.
Gee, liberty, I would not mistake your criticism of Chavez for anything but what is IS: that of someone who has done NOTHING for his own country as it falls into the abyss, but continues to try to tapar al sol con el dedo by pointing out that Venezuela is a country in the Third World.
Liberty:
Why not make an economic comparison that means something?
1. Why not compare Venezuela's past 5 years of more than 10% growth with other countries in the region? Feel free to post the resulkts of that comparison here.
2. Why not give us an analysis of WHY Venezuela's inflation is so high at the same time as its reserves are so high, its growth is so high, and its unemployment rate drops every quarter. Clue: More folks can CONSUME (buy stuff) under Chavez.
3. And why NOT compare Chavez to OTHER politicians of different ideologies? Why not compare him to Calderon or Uribe or Garcia? You choose to compare him to OTHER pols of VERY different ideological persuasion--after all, Chavez is HARDLY of the same ideological stripe as Bachelet, Vazquez or Lula--far from it. (BTW, Bachelet's presidency is in trouble because of salaries inadequate to live on--witness the strike just last week of bureaucrats--and is the most recent elections the right wing pols made a very strong comeback.) If you are going to compare Chavez to Lula, Vazquez and Bachelet, that is comparing apples and opranges. And there are other apples out there--on the same continent, in fact.
4. Please indicate the tv station shut down by Chavez. It is not RCTV--as I was THERE in Caracas when that channel was not RENEWED on the open airwaves. It still broadcasts on cable there.
5. Please indicate the phone-tapping targets by the Chavez government.
6. Please indicate the amount of food that flows from Colombia to Venezuela. Clue: since Venezuelan food prices are HALF that of those in Colombia, a very healthy contraband food exportation cartel held sway until recently FROM Venezuela TO Colombia.
7. Since you claim to read Venezuelanalysis.com, please read Mark Weisbrot's analysis of oil prices versus budget issues in Venezuela--and REPORT to us those findings.
In order to prevail in a debate, it is NOT de riguer to LIE, as that just costs you credibility across the board.
Nor is it necessary to plant red herrings--for example comparing crime rates with economic growth--or socialists with social democrats (the correct name, BTW).
"Unemployment:
USA: 6.5% (October) source US Bureau of Labor Statistics
VENEZUELA: 7.3%, source http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3948"
The BLS fabricates their unemployment numbers every year. To begin with, 6.5% does not include those who gave up looking for employment and are long term unemployed. Moreover, there are more temporary contract positions these days than there are full time permanent.
"Inflation
USA: 3.7%, source US Bureau of Labor Statistics
VENEZUELA 34.5% (food inflation is 51%), year ending in August 2008. Source http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3948, www.eluniversal.com"
The only reason prices are artificially "low" is government subsidizes Big Agri and Latin America is giving fat ass LOSERS such as yourself all the junk you could ever ask for.
"Crime (Murder rate)
USA: 4 per 100,000. Falling."
It's not that low. Besides, the gun lobbyists did all that they could to fudge the numbers. Gun violence is rising in the USA and you know it. You and your NRA propagandists are the reason national security in this nation is a SICK JOKE. America needs to be seriously DISCIPLINED and since it can't hold its urge to shoot shoot shoot, GUN CONTROL is seriously needed and no, it's not fascist. When GUN CONTROL is put in motion, then the crime murder rate will come close to 4 in 100,000. Right now, it's more like 4,000 in 100,000 when you include all those crimes related to gun violence.
Maybe if we have GUN CONTROL, the US murder rate will fall to the rate in Mexico, which does indeed have strict GUN CONTROL, and the US suicide rate will fall to the rate of Japan, which also has strict GUN CONTROL?
I am not supposed to insult, so I won't, but your comment above is so very tempting: 4,000 out of 100,000? Do you realize that what that means is you are saying that 1 out of 25 Americans is killed by GUN VIOLENCE each year? Tell me you are not really that, er, foolish. Please.
You don't even sound like you know jack about Mexico and Japan. Try visiting those countries when you're done being a foam-at-the-mouth rightwing lunatic.
Oh I have been in Mexico, border towns and interior and of my friends and buisness contacts down there tell me owning a firearm is illegal but they tell me they own them anyway. Guns make you a criminal just like alcohol makes you an alcoholic.
Are you seriusly sugesting that guns motivate some one to commit crime? Guns have nothing to do with crime, crime is caused by other factors such as poverty. As the poverty rate falls, so does the crime rate. Guns are fare more regulated today then they were 50 years ago, so what has changed? It is not because Guns are easier to get, other factors are involved. Gun Control is a bandaid, not a solution, if gun control is all that is passed, you might as well do nothing. Only when you address the root cause, will things change and then Guns do not come into play.
Gun control will cause the US to become a violence free paradise, as criminals everywhere rush to obey the law and turn in their guns.
Just like Mexico or Jamaica.
You don't even know Mexico or Jamaica so quit your lying. Those two nations watched their crime rates go through the roof when gun control was taken out. Guns are nothing more than a load of metal meant to terrorize and kill. You're just rambling some NRA propaganda which has been proven false.
My dear friend, lay off the hemp. Then go to a reputable MEXICAN progressive newspaper, like La Jornada (www.jornada.unam.mx) and read about the gun crime situation in Mexico today, bearing in mind that under the Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos, calibers above .38 are completely illegal, semi-automatics are completely illegal, and concealed carry is completely illegal. If you are really motivated, try to dig up crime statistics from 1974 (when the gun control laws were imposed, not to decrease crime, but to make it easier to control the population during election fraud) to the present. This assumes you speak Spanish, of course. Since you seem to know EVERYTHING about Mexico, I assume you do. I, who know "nothing" about Mexico certainly do.
Actually, the Secretaria de Gonernacion gives permits to carry concealed weapons.
As does the Procuradaria General de la Republica.
Problem is, half of their ministers are currently under house arrest being investigated for narcotrafficking.
I DO speak Spanish, BTW.
SEGOB, the PGR and SEDENA give permits at their discretion. So does the Sherrif of San Francisco County. If you are filthy rich, connected, or named Diane Feinstein, you might even get one. If you are part of the other 99.98% of the population, forget it.
Really?
Is there a point you are making.
The permits given here in Mexico are given to narco hitpersons, kidnappers, the usual suspects. Except that the gifting is not free.
I had a concealed weapons permit in Washington State when I lived in the US.